Megan C Roberts1, Amy E Kennedy1, David A Chambers1, Muin J Khoury1,2. 1. Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, Maryland, USA. 2. Office of Public Health Genomics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify trends and gaps in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base to examine the current literature in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. We selected original research articles based on specific inclusion criteria and then abstracted information about study design, genomic medicine, and implementation outcomes. Data were aggregated, and trends and gaps in the literature were discussed. RESULTS: Our final review encompassed 283 articles published in 2014, the majority of which described uptake (35.7%, n = 101) and preferences (36.4%, n = 103) regarding genomic technologies, particularly oncology (35%, n = 99). Key study design elements, such as racial/ethnic composition of study populations, were underreported in studies. Few studies incorporated implementation science theoretical frameworks, sustainability measures, or capacity building. CONCLUSION: Although genomic discovery provides the potential for population health benefit, the current knowledge base around implementation to turn this promise into a reality is severely limited. Current gaps in the literature demonstrate a need to apply implementation science principles to genomic medicine in order to deliver on the promise of precision medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 12 January 2017.
PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to identify trends and gaps in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. METHODS: We conducted a literature review using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Public Health Genomics Knowledge Base to examine the current literature in the field of implementation science in genomic medicine. We selected original research articles based on specific inclusion criteria and then abstracted information about study design, genomic medicine, and implementation outcomes. Data were aggregated, and trends and gaps in the literature were discussed. RESULTS: Our final review encompassed 283 articles published in 2014, the majority of which described uptake (35.7%, n = 101) and preferences (36.4%, n = 103) regarding genomic technologies, particularly oncology (35%, n = 99). Key study design elements, such as racial/ethnic composition of study populations, were underreported in studies. Few studies incorporated implementation science theoretical frameworks, sustainability measures, or capacity building. CONCLUSION: Although genomic discovery provides the potential for population health benefit, the current knowledge base around implementation to turn this promise into a reality is severely limited. Current gaps in the literature demonstrate a need to apply implementation science principles to genomic medicine in order to deliver on the promise of precision medicine.Genet Med advance online publication 12 January 2017.
Authors: Arjun K Manrai; Birgit H Funke; Heidi L Rehm; Morten S Olesen; Bradley A Maron; Peter Szolovits; David M Margulies; Joseph Loscalzo; Isaac S Kohane Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2016-08-18 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Robert C Green; Katrina A B Goddard; Gail P Jarvik; Laura M Amendola; Paul S Appelbaum; Jonathan S Berg; Barbara A Bernhardt; Leslie G Biesecker; Sawona Biswas; Carrie L Blout; Kevin M Bowling; Kyle B Brothers; Wylie Burke; Charlisse F Caga-Anan; Arul M Chinnaiyan; Wendy K Chung; Ellen W Clayton; Gregory M Cooper; Kelly East; James P Evans; Stephanie M Fullerton; Levi A Garraway; Jeremy R Garrett; Stacy W Gray; Gail E Henderson; Lucia A Hindorff; Ingrid A Holm; Michelle Huckaby Lewis; Carolyn M Hutter; Pasi A Janne; Steven Joffe; David Kaufman; Bartha M Knoppers; Barbara A Koenig; Ian D Krantz; Teri A Manolio; Laurence McCullough; Jean McEwen; Amy McGuire; Donna Muzny; Richard M Myers; Deborah A Nickerson; Jeffrey Ou; Donald W Parsons; Gloria M Petersen; Sharon E Plon; Heidi L Rehm; J Scott Roberts; Dan Robinson; Joseph S Salama; Sarah Scollon; Richard R Sharp; Brian Shirts; Nancy B Spinner; Holly K Tabor; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; David L Veenstra; Nikhil Wagle; Karen Weck; Benjamin S Wilfond; Kirk Wilhelmsen; Susan M Wolf; Julia Wynn; Joon-Ho Yu Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2016-05-12 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Gila Neta; Michael A Sanchez; David A Chambers; Siobhan M Phillips; Bryan Leyva; Laurie Cynkin; Margaret M Farrell; Suzanne Heurtin-Roberts; Cynthia Vinson Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-01-08 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Byron J Powell; Thomas J Waltz; Matthew J Chinman; Laura J Damschroder; Jeffrey L Smith; Monica M Matthieu; Enola K Proctor; JoAnn E Kirchner Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2015-02-12 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: William M P Klein; Colleen M McBride; Caitlin G Allen; Elva M Arredondo; Cinnamon S Bloss; Kimberly A Kaphingst; Amy C Sturm; Catharine Wang Journal: Am J Hum Genet Date: 2019-02-07 Impact factor: 11.025
Authors: Lindsay Fernández-Rhodes; Kristin L Young; Adam G Lilly; Laura M Raffield; Heather M Highland; Genevieve L Wojcik; Cary Agler; Shelly-Ann M Love; Samson Okello; Lauren E Petty; Mariaelisa Graff; Jennifer E Below; Kimon Divaris; Kari E North Journal: Circ Res Date: 2020-06-04 Impact factor: 17.367
Authors: Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Natalia Udaltsova; Lawrence H Kushi; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Alanna Kulchak Rahm; Pamala A Pawloski; Douglas A Corley; Sarah Knerr; Heather Spencer Feigelson; Jessica Ezzell Hunter; David C Tabano; Mara M Epstein; Stacey A Honda; Monica Ter-Minassian; Julie A Lynch; Christine Y Lu Journal: JCO Clin Cancer Inform Date: 2019-09